Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by thewaylifeshouldbe, Sep 7, 2009.
Since it's Seymour all day, here is another "rumor".
Per Patriots Insider
Well, if the other rumors are credible (i.e. Seymour is pissed and doesn't want to go to Oakland, Seymour is the guy Hobbs was referring to, etc.,.), it seems like both the Pats and Seymour have quickly burnt their bridges and this is irrepairable. So Seymour's going somewhere, I'd think.
This would make for an interesting situation if true. PI is touting this as there being a problem with the trade, not the issue of Seymour maybe not reporting.
I sure hope it goes through. Since Matt Millen got fired, we're not going to get a 1st rounder out of anyone else but Al Davis.
They're saying that Seymour could end up going to KC for their 2010 #2, without saying more about what is written there it sounds like the Patriots could probably fall back on that if they wanted and the assumption (by me) is it depends if they want to do that or push the Raider deal, presumably with the 5 day letter which would leave Seymour little choice but to report.
There can be no problem with the trade since it goes through the league and both teams have acknowledged it as a done deal. The problem likely results from uncertainty over his reporting. And maybe Oakland is leery of a deal they made for a guy who is demanding consideration for even showing up and that is being panned by the experts as a suckers move born of desperation. The five day letter insures Seymour will show up but Oakland may already be regretting the move if that's what it takes... They may be asking for a change of terms to a conditional pick now contingent on his showing up and suiting up. That was what happened in the Plummer debaucle. Pick went from a 4th to a 7th when he retired. Although in that case I believe it meant Tampa could persue him for return of signing bonus and held his rights should he unretire.
I know the Patriots org. has confirmed it, but hasn't there yet to be an official statement from the Raiders saying so?
Probably there has been.....I just haven't heard of it yet.
Could they really ask for a change of terms even after it's gone through the league and been acknowledged by both teams, as you mentioned earlier?
I believe in the Plummer deal, they knew there was a strong probability the player wouldn't show up, so it was part of the original deal.
Maybe he'll get sent to the Jets, and that will wrap the Kerry Rhodes 'surprise' thread up nicely
Unless the Raiders waived the requirement of Seymour passing his physical, this deal is not final. I do not know whether or not this happened. I'm merely pointing something out.
But it will be if the Patriots and Raiders both want it because Seymour isn't stupid and his choice is to report or sit out the year with no salary and no accrued year to FA.
Do you really think that the Raider can afford to play chicken on this, after all that's happened there in recent years?
I know that Davis is 'different', but I'd think that even he would have to ponder this one.
As BelichickFan mentioned, the Pats can (and might) send him the five day letter, stating he has 5 days to report to Oakland or else he loses a year of pay and a year of UFA eligibility. Therefore, I doubt Seymour will hold out for any significant length of time.
A player has every right to refuse a trade to a particular team. However, it hardly ever happens because they want to get paid. If Seymour really doesn't want to play for the Raiders, he doesn't have to. If he doesn't show up, the Raiders can rescind the trade and Seymour becomes the Pats problem. If Seymour puts his foot down, and I doubt he will, he can request the Pats or Raiders to trade him elsewhere. Remember T.O to the Ravens?
What if Richard Seymour doesn't show in Oakland? | ProFootballTalk.com
*Update* Pats could send Seymour the dreaded 5 day letter?
I highly doubt this happens because like the Plummer situation, nobody wins. If Seymour continues to put his foot down, the Pats would be wise to trade him elsewhere. I have a feeling this trade is going to get get rescinded or the Raiders deal him elsewhere ala Terrell Owens to Ravens to Eagles.
I'm good with it either way, the KC 2010 #2 is appealing as it would likely be a top half of the round pick and a lot of juniors will likely come out with the possible upcoming rookie salary scale.
PI isn't reporting this from the sitting out angle, they are reporting a problem with the trade itself.
Matter of fact they are updating the story to say that him heading to KC is getting more steam by the hour.
I certainly hope not, because if so, this will be the first time I consider Belichick to have screwed up royally.
Seymour for 1 year is worth more to the Patriots than a second round draft choice.
Now that I think about it, the Seymour to KC story might be there to give Al Davis a scare.
This sounds like total BS. They're just trying to create something out of nothing from the Lombardi (I think it was him) story about Seymour's friend.
The Patriots and Raiders both announced the trade. It's official. The only thing that could axe it would be Seymour not reporting, but he probably will.
I mentioned it earlier, but when/where did the Raiders announce the trade?
I assumed they had, but I can't find a release on it other than Cable discussing him being a good addition.
Edit: Nevermind, their website shows him on the roster.
Separate names with a comma.